- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Stanford swimmer who raped unconsciousness woman gets shorter sentence
Posted on 6/8/16 at 4:10 pm to Salmon
Posted on 6/8/16 at 4:10 pm to Salmon
quote:
does the latter somehow absolve him of rape?
serious question
if I drive impaired, it doesn't matter if I think I'm ok to drive or not, I'm still getting a DUI
Well, let's back up here.
The law says driving under the influence is illegal. It does not say having sex under the influence is illegal.
No one will argue that forcible rape is wrong.
However, the issue that TT is trying to argue is that if both parties were equally intoxicated, how do we know that she didn't drunkenly fool around with the guy. She is so drunk that she passed out, but perhaps the guy was equally so drunk that he didn't notice.
There is a very serious discussion that needs to be had here regarding personal responsibility and alcohol consumption.
At the end of the day, the guy is a convicted felon, will spend several months in jail, and will register as a sex offender. He forfeit many rights and freedoms because of his actions, and people are pissing and moaning over jail time.
2
Posted on 6/8/16 at 4:12 pm to Wermanium
quote:
I don't think in the Stanford case he ever penetrated her. He was so drunk he was just dry humping her.
Pretty sure he penetrated her with his hands. I mean, that's what he was found guilty of. (sexual penetration).
He also, from what I read, was going around looking for girls at the party and tried to get on the victim's sister who had to push him away. Maybe he shouldn't have gotten so drunk
This post was edited on 6/8/16 at 4:23 pm
Posted on 6/8/16 at 4:13 pm to Bmath
quote:
There is a very serious discussion that needs to be had here regarding personal responsibility and alcohol consumption.
Where is the fun in that? That doesn't allow for the social media feeding frenzy and moral preening that many are engaging in.
Posted on 6/8/16 at 4:14 pm to Mo Jeaux
so we know Brock Turner will be getting at least two Hallmark cards in jail now
Posted on 6/8/16 at 4:16 pm to REG861
quote:
so we know Brock Turner will be getting at least two Hallmark cards in jail now
Keep preening. You will be showered with adulation.
Posted on 6/8/16 at 4:19 pm to Mo Jeaux
Take a look through this thread. You and your idiot buddy TT are in the very small minority here, and for good reason. Cry some more about how it's not fair that little Brock got too drunk and was picked on by the the mean SJWs. The rest of us will continue with our lives. Except Brock. 
This post was edited on 6/8/16 at 4:20 pm
Posted on 6/8/16 at 4:22 pm to Bmath
quote:
the issue that TT is trying to argue is that if both parties were equally intoxicated, how do we know that she didn't drunkenly fool around with the guy. She is so drunk that she passed out, but perhaps the guy was equally so drunk that he didn't notice.
yep...thanks for saying it more eloquently
Posted on 6/8/16 at 4:22 pm to BuckeyeFan87
14 parents of teenage swimmers.
This post was edited on 6/8/16 at 4:23 pm
Posted on 6/8/16 at 4:24 pm to REG861
Unlike you, I don't really get caught up in the social media outrage of the day, so I'm not crying. The amount of text and related concern about this matter that I have expressed is limited to the less than handful of posts I've put in this thread. You, however, certainly seem very, very concerned. So much so, that you're acting like an emotional little girl because of it. As I said before, carry on with your preening. I'm sure we're all very, very impressed.
Posted on 6/8/16 at 4:25 pm to REG861
quote:
Take a look through this thread. You and your idiot buddy TT are in the very small minority here,
Like the majority is made up of geniuses
Posted on 6/8/16 at 4:35 pm to Mo Jeaux
Posted on 6/8/16 at 4:38 pm to Topwater Trout
quote:
However, the issue that TT is trying to argue is that if both parties were equally intoxicated, how do we know that she didn't drunkenly fool around with the guy. She is so drunk that she passed out, but perhaps the guy was equally so drunk that he didn't notice.
yep...thanks for saying it more eloquently
They weren't equally intoxicated. She was 3x the legal limit and he was 2x the legal limit. He had the wherewithal to remove her clothes, penetrate her, and ultimately get up and run when the foreign kids spotted him. That shows he understood enough about the situation that he was in and should have been able to tell that he was penetrating a chick that wasn't moving.
I understand the "maybe she was conscious and gave consent when they started" argument, but the "he was too drunk to realize what he was doing, so he shouldn't be at fault" argument is pretty ridiculous in this case.
Posted on 6/8/16 at 4:46 pm to Mo Jeaux
I haven't followed this story AT ALL - haven't even read one article about it beyond the headlines. I will say that if both parties were black-out drunk when the sex happened then leniency is justified. If he was relatively clear headed and raped a passed-out chick, he should be severely punished.
I don't see how there is any debate about his. There is a big difference between those two scenarios.
I don't see how there is any debate about his. There is a big difference between those two scenarios.
Posted on 6/8/16 at 5:01 pm to TheChosenOne
quote:
I understand the "maybe she was conscious and gave consent when they started" argument, but the "he was too drunk to realize what he was doing, so he shouldn't be at fault" argument is pretty ridiculous in this case.
It seems quite apparent from reading through the news that the guy was rightfully convicted.
I think the misunderstanding in the discussion is some people believe that the word rape gets thrown around too often. Many rape cases involve people that know each other, and have no other witnesses. It becomes a matter of he said she said. That is what makes it difficult for victims to come forward, and wrongfully accused to fight it. This is why "consensual sex contracts" have been proposed.
We've reached a cross roads in the conversation where people say they should be able to go out without being raped. Everyone agrees with this statement, but some are concerned about a seemingly vague definition of what constitutes rape in some instances. It now boils down to people wanting to go out without being accused of rape. Apparently there is a big disconnect for some people regarding what constitutes consent or lack there of.
This goes back to why we need to be having more serious conversations with our kids about personal responsibility and respect for others. Actions have consequences, and not meaning to harm someone is not always a good enough defense.
This post was edited on 6/8/16 at 5:14 pm
Posted on 6/8/16 at 5:01 pm to TheChosenOne
delete
This post was edited on 6/8/16 at 5:02 pm
Page 12 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News